Las Vegas Sun

April 18, 2015

Currently: 67° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Storm, Clinton led to Obama victory

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

President Barack Obama wins another four years but does not have a mandate of voters, and it looks like another lame-duck president for another four years.

It was all over when Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast a few days before the election, and Mitt Romney could not maintain his momentum in the news — Obama got a big hug from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie with his visit for a photo-op, and then he takes off campaigning again.

How lucky could you be to have former President Bill Clinton to make stops in Ohio the day before the election?

Obama’s acceptance speech in Chicago included the same old promises as his speech in 2008, and I don’t believe he will ever work with the Republican speaker of the House because a leopard never changes his spots.

The American people will again rise up and defeat the Democratic majority in the Senate in 2014, as they did in the 2010 elections in the House and Senate.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 36 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Don't overlook the fact that the Jeep commercial was probably a lie too far.

    If you want to take the Senate in 2014, you'd better find some women who are qualified instead of clueless ideological males who think they know all about female reproduction and God's will.

  2. Stephen J. Chiarello, Henderson,

    With all due respect, your obsolutely 100% wrong with your conclusion. And quite frankly very narrow thinking.

    The President lead throughout the campaign maintained a clear lead in the battle ground states. The first 2012 Presidential Campaign sent out false signals because of the President's performance in the debate. If your a poll watcher and using the poll to make your decision on how you would vote, then you were mislead.

    Again, with all due respect, there is only one main outlet that is pushing the reasons you stated in your article,...Foxnews. This is the only excuse Foxnews has, Karl Rove said it, other news outlets repeat it. Pollsters then run "their" numbers and presto, because a false reality. It's called the Bubble. If your in a bubble, your spoon feed your thoughts. If your in a bubble the only reality you know is what is given to you by the sources in the bubble.

    This is not an attack on you Mr. Stephen J. Chiarello, of Henderson. As I type, I am outside your bubble looking in. You can't see or hear me, I'm not in the bubble with you. I could give you credible sources and reliable and respectable website to show how wrong your are. I could throw numbers at you and show you where your wrong, where you are incorrect. But you wouldn't get the information, or more honestly, you wouldn't accept the information. Not when your in the Bubble. You see, when your in the bubble no other information is allowed in, nothing! Only what is being circulated in Bubble. The Bubble Master controls all information that come inside the Bubble. Your Bubble Master is Foxnews.

    You see, all Bubbles have a Bubble Masters. Based on your article your Bubble Master is Foxnews. But you will say, oh no, I read this here, or I got this from this source or that source. Well, Stephen J. Chiarello, from Henderson, the Bubble Master sends out boomerangs of distorted messages bouncing off many sources, trying to get a gain of sand truth. The distorted message come back into the Bubble and is loudly proclaim as the whole truth and nothing but the truth to all who reside in the Bubble. Again, presto,...another reality is discovered in the bubble.

    Bottom line Stephen J. Chiarello, of Henderson, if you believe what you have written, if your truly believe over 60 million American voted for the President because of the Sandy storm, or over 60 million Americans voted across the country to election the Senators the House members, new Governors, because of the Sandy storm. Well, only you know why your thinking the way you are. But clearly your thinking is not what 60 millions American believe Stephen J. Chiarello.

    That's what happens when your in the Bubble. Yeah, Mitt Romney couldn't believe he lost, he too is in the Bubble. Maybe he is sitting next to you.

  3. ReFreeman,

    Thanks for your response and your suggestion to improve the message. I see your attempt and truly appreciate your input.

    The Bubble message runs deep, and stick with a group of American having limited access, or just refuse to reach out. I prefer to think many people in the Bubble are limited to information and venerable to Bubble Masters like Foxnews. However, there are other Bubble Masters. Those who advance such false claims like the Sandy Storm changed the minds of voters, when in fact many Americans voted early, before the Sandy Storm.

    Based on your response to my response to Mr. Stephen J. Chiarello article, you seem to agree.

  4. Backward logic again. Decide you have a reason the election went as it did and then cherry pick only the information that supports the pre-packaged conclusion.

    The polls had been pretty consistent showing President Obama with a slight lead in most battleground states. As a Romney supporter, I felt that Romney would probably lose in a close race, which he did. I 'hoped', but did not really believe that a late surge by Romney supporters 'might' be able to overcome Obama's advantage. The late surge did not happen and Obama won... by single digits in most battleground states (by 60,000 votes) in Florida and by about 2 % of the popular vote. Romney lost big in the electoral college but that is because the electoral college is winner take all instead of allocated by popular vote in each state. If popular vote allocation were used, the electoral college vote would have been close, like the rest of the election was.

    President Obama won the election, but there was not a 'mandate'. The election was too close to reasonably claim that. However, he did win and R's have an obligation to work with the President and compromise where possible to get important things done.

    R's are in the minority on several social issues and while they have a right to hold those views, putting them front and center in national elections will ensure defeats. In addition, R's cannot continue to talk about smaller government and lower taxes, only to be elected, cut taxes and not cut government. R's have the correct message economically, in my view, but when you only carry out the 'easy' part of the message (tax cuts) and eschew the 'tough' part, (government spending cuts), your credibility goes out the window.


  5. Abortion, rape, birth control, taxes, new voter laws, immigration, and a string of right wing unpopular issues had nothing to do with the election? Especially the insane comments made by a few loose screws. Mr. Chiarello you ignore reality as do others now crying about the election.

    When pundits starting talking trash about the polls being skewed I had to laugh. The GOP chose a very unpopular path to walk down and suffered the consequences.

  6. Michael says,
    "Backward logic again. Decide you have a reason the election went as it did and then cherry pick only the information that supports the pre-packaged conclusion." (Michael Casler)

    Michael your comments are accurate and I agree with 98% of what you have written. I conclude you are saying, many Americans (registered voters) made their decisions long ago and only a small portion of the undecided voters made their decision in the final days before election day.

    The Sandy Storm clearly did not turn this election.

    You were also correct in saying the margin of victor was close in relationship to votes cast, not by the electoral votes earned.

    Excellent post, Michael.

  7. Longtimevegan,

    Nobody can 'know' what effect the storm had on the election. If you ask me to 'guess', I would guess that it helped Obama and hurt Romney. Was it decisive? I have no idea. It doesn't really matter, does it?

    I find all the post election analysis by those that write to the Sun to have one goal for each side:

    For those on the Progressive side, it is to marshal any and all evidence to support a conclusion that the election was a mandate for President Obama.

    For those on the Conservative side, it is to marshal any and all evidence to support a conclusion that the election was that of an unpopular and weak President who luckily won.

    Frankly, I find each conclusion sort of sad and wholly inaccurate. The truth, as it usually is, is somewhere in the middle.


  8. I have been tough on the R's and said that the social issues need to take a back seat if the R's want to win national elections. I have also said R's can't just cut taxes and then not cut spending if they want to be taken seriously.

    Vernos seems to want to ignore that fact that 56 million Americans voted for Romney. Those 56 million people do not all agree that the R party is being run by a bunch of loons. If that were the case, Obama would have won by a much larger margin and the Tea Party would have been swept out of the House. That did not happen.

    There are many that share Vernos' view but also many others who do not.


  9. Romney lost because Obama and his minnows ran a smear campaign against him starting in August 2011. When you can't win on your record and policies you demonize your opponent. It worked, just barely. Even with the most costly negative campaign in American presidential politics, Romney still almost pulled a win. It's impossible NOW to defeat an incumbent president that lies [and believes his lies] and has endless campaign funds and time. Add in a lilly soft media that idolizes everything Obama and forgives all his transgressions, and Obama can be president for life if he wants.


  10. Carmine,

    Those of us who voted for Romney are disappointed that he lost, but Obama can only serve one more term.

    The majority of the media does lean left and doesn't report fairly, but they are generally balanced by a powerful and popular Fox News and Talk Radio.

    Obama ran the campaign anyone (even an R) in his position would have run. The record wasn't real good, so he ran negative. DUH! That's what politicians do when they have a weak record to run on.

    It isn't impossible to defeat an incumbent that lies. It just did not happen this election.

    Buck up. Life goes on. America is still divided about 50/50 despite what many want to claim. Tomorrow is another day.


  11. Mr.Chiarello,

    I do not believe that we had that many people sitting on the fence (waiting to vote). Who decided on voting for Pres.Obama, because of how quickly he sprang into action during the hurricane Sandy storm.

    The majority of voter's have made up their mind prior to showing up on election day to vote on Nov.6th.The loss of the election by Mitt Romney was the result of what people didn't like about Gov.Romney's platform.

  12. fearNloathingNV,

    Mary Matalin comments do not help the moderate Republicans who are trying to break free from the grip of the Bubble. Mrs. Matalin is a personality who continue to spew inciting words to keep attention.

    Colin Powell and Major Michael Bloomberg indirectly offered moderate Republicans a foot hold to right the Republican ship by their endorsements of President Obama. Moderated, or reasonable Republicans can use them for cover, if that's want it takes.

    Sending people like Mrs. Matalin, John Sinunu, Donald Trump, Allen West, Michele Bachman, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and flawed candidates like Mitt Romney, further damages the Republican brand we all knew as party of Reagan.

    Ronald Reagan would be rejected by Republican Party of day.

    To reference the article by Mr. Chiarello, saying the Sandy storm won the election for the President, that is just not true. Did the Sandy storm help voters make decision? According to the polls, which poll your believe, it helped in the decision making of a small portion of voters. In the real world of life and real numbers, the Sandy Storm did not decided the Presidential election.

    The message from Republicans like Mrs. Matalin, they are telling Americans, they would like continue in the Bubble world created by Bubble Masters like Foxnews.

    If the Republican Party indeed wants to represent American through the highest elected office in the land, the party needs to send out reasonable voices to represent and deliver a reasonable message. The party message must be edited in order to reach the voters who overwhelmingly supported the President, and rejected Mitt Romney.

  13. "Buck up. Life goes on. America is still divided about 50/50 despite what many want to claim. Tomorrow is another day."

    Mr. Casler et al:

    The presidential race is for the win, the fight after is for the history books.


  14. Mike Murphy, a Republican campaign manager and strategist wrote, "Despairing Republican friends have been asking me what I think we should do to rebuild the GOP and begin our certain and inevitable comeback. My answer disappoints them: "Build an ark."

    "I say this because I've made a career out of counting votes, and the numbers tell a clear story; the demographics of America are changing in a way that is deadly for the Republican Party as it exists today. A GOP ice age is on the way."

    That was back in June of 2009. Was he heeded? Not! That is the real problem with the GOP, ignoring reality and following the lemmings over the cliff.

  15. weirdos

  16. If we want to talk about demographics, we must be accurate. Where a demographic change is happening is in the social policy arena. Very Conservative ideas in this social arena, like outlawing abortion, no gay marriage, deporting all illegal aliens are going to be very difficult to win with due to changing demographics.

    That said, Conservatives core financial message is as valid as it always has been, if that message is smaller and more efficient government, balanced budgets and low taxes. Here's the problem. Progressives are very quiet about budgets, debts and deficits, while Conservatives take a bull horn and yell about all three.

    If Conservatives actually yelled about balanced budgets, debt and deficits and then governed the way they yelled, everything would be OK. The problem is that their actions don't match the words, as the administration of former President George W. Bush clearly illustrated.

    In my opinion, Progressives are even less interested in balanced budgets, debt and deficits than Conservatives are, but they are smart enough not to take a bullhorn and yell about stuff they have little intention of seriously addressing. Balanced budgets are going to be a major roadblock to everything President Obama and Progressives want to do, so I do not expect to see progress in this area.

    Conservatives have the better message economically, even in our changing demographics, but they can't just talk it, they have to govern that way.

    Conservatives need to move closer on social issues to where changing demographics tell us the country is and they need to state their economic philosophy clearly, but most importantly, govern that way if elected.

    It's not easy or popular to tell Americans they cannot have everything Progressives say they can, but I think enough Americans will understand that as more and more of us fall out of the middle class because we allow government to spend way more than it brings in.


  17. Vernos,

    Mike Murphy was and is correct. However, economically, which is the most important area, Conservatives and Progressives will lead us all over the same fiscal cliff... if we allow it.

    Watch and see over the next two years, what the President and Congress do to bring spending and revenue much closer together. Conservatives can never accomplish this because they cannot stop the military expansions and military interventions, which are extremely costly. Progressives can never accomplish this because they cannot stop spending to expand the social welfare state.

    It used to be ok as we played musical chairs. Conservatives in... expand military and interventionism. Conservatives out, Progressives in... expand social welfare spending. But now military spending, social welfare spending and entitlement spending have put us in a 16 trillion dollar hole, while we dig it 1 trillion dollars deeper every year.

    To top it off, both Conservatives and Progressives tell us we can grow our way out of trouble; one by cutting taxes across the board and the other, claiming we can do it by reducing the military and raising taxes on the rich. Pure Fantasy, from both sides.

    The next time the music stops and it will, many Americans are going to find no seats to sit down. The message should be: It's the taxes and the spending, stupid(s)!


  18. Mr. Casler et al:

    According to exit polls on election day, when asked if raising taxes on Americans is okay to balance the budget, voters said "NO" by a margin of 2 to 1. Does that sound like a mandate for new taxes as lameduck President Obama and dirty harry claim?


  19. Good discussion, with many excellent points cited, especially by Michael Casler and "LastThroes." I think that Mr. Chiarello greatly oversimplifies the reasons that President Obama was re-elected. I knocked on hundreds of doors, made hundreds of phone calls, and most of the voters that I spoke to, from both parties, had their minds made up a long time ago.

    @RefNV: In one of your posts, you include the phrase "should have wrote." Just to let you know, that is incorrect--"should have written" would be the correct grammatical usage. (: I wouldn't mention it, but you did seem to be concerned with correct grammar, as you had corrected "Longtimevegan" on his use of "you're" and "your." You're welcome!

  20. If the republican party really believes they lost this election because of Bill and Sandy, they should prepare to lose the next election as well.

  21. I'm quite pleased to see comments from Carmine and other seeking to come up with some esoteric reason[s] for their candidates losses. Lets see, 332 to 207 electoral votes, plus 3 million popular vote, plus two in the Senate and plus five in the House [with a few more to count]....and all this while struggling out of a serious recession with obstructionism from the "loyal" opposition. Keep up the delusions, fellas, it will do nothing but help us take the House back in 2014 and get Hillary elected two years after that. Your day is done, your lamp is dim, your wad is shot....!n 10 years the Modern Whigs will have started to take a big chunk of your support.

  22. @RefNV: Haha! Touche! Thank you. Oversimplified! I love this "correction" game. However, I think the most important thing THAT was oversimplified was the Romney campaign's belief that the president would lose--it was the rich, uneducated populace WHO bought into this flawed premise.

  23. Carmine,

    If Americans are asked if they favor the wealthy having their taxes raised, they say yes by 60 % to 40 %. I'm not an Obama supporter but you and others need to start looking at things as they are. President Obama advocated higher taxes on the wealthy and not on anyone else and that was a winning play.

    President Obama still has a real mess on his hands. It is going to be very tough to get spending under control and if he doesn't, his 2nd term is going to be a disaster.


  24. peaceperson,

    Let it be know, ReFreeman cannot accepted any type of correction to his comments. I know he can be better, but he prefers to listen to himself.

    Nice try peaceperson.

  25. The republicans have been listening to Rush and Glenn and Fox. Now they actually believe their own bovine defecation. Even after Obama crushed Romney, they continue to remain unplugged from reality. The internet is killing the religious right and their bronze age ideas, which have become a large platform of the republican party. At some point they will be compelled to admit that what the public perceives as better ideas has won out. They will have to consider using reason and logic.

  26. The election was won by a couple states, I think the people of 2 or 3 states now elect the president, quite crazy. Anyway, O is pres again for 4 years, I think he may be more willing to do deals now that he can not be elected again so maybe he gets more to the center. Whatever he does probably will not effect me much anyway, unless he really messes up and the economy tanks hard.

  27. "Keep up the delusions, fellas, it will do nothing but help us take the House back in 2014 and get Hillary elected two years after that."

    First and foremost, when she stops running and hiding, Hilary has to testify before Congress on Benghazi and her role in it.


  28. "Carmine,

    If Americans are asked if they favor the wealthy having their taxes raised, they say yes by 60 % to 40 %."

    Mr. Casler et al:

    You're quoting old studies spun by Obama and his minnows. You need new material. Americans don't want taxes raised on anyone rich, poor, or in between. BTW, $250,000 per annum is not a millioniare/billionaire. Obama needs to retake math 101. It comes up short by $750,000.


  29. EQL:

    I entertained that thought, really!

    It actually happened twice! Remember the Republican convention? It had to be reduced to three days. Nature's hand had a play then, first. Then by some twist of fate Obama was absent during the first debate and Romney surged ahead and gained ground. Nature said, "nah ah'" and blew another punch. As if saying, "you do not agree that you should treat me right. I'll make you!"

    You think Mother Nature is a democrat?

  30. ReFreeman says,

    "Longtimevegan, it is "Let it be **known**", not **know**. Also, **accepted** should be **accept**. Additionally, **be** should be "can **do** better".

    "Finally, I do not "listen to himself" because I do not talk out loud to myself." (posted by ReFreeman)

    I expected your input. Again, Mr. ReFreeman, your participation and input is welcomed. As always your input adds much to the discussion, helping to improve the message is always a good thing.

    Just to reference the article by Mr. Stephen J. Chiarello, of Henderson, Nevada. It appears that many people who give out information, such as suggestions, or advice, and not accept in coming information, such as suggestions or advice are citizens of the Bubble. This also holds true to the suggestion the Sandy storm won the election for President Obama. If your a citizen of the Bubble, you can only receive information coming from the Bubble Master. As stated before, Foxnews is a Bubble Master. However, there are many other Bubble Masters, such as Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and several websites and feature writers. Like Paul Sperry and websites like So there are many Bubble Masters out there. The sole purpose of the Bubble Masters is to keep the Bubble Citizens inside the Bubble being controlled by the Bubble Master. This is done in several ways. One is to take a gain of truth and stretch and distort a message, and attach a value to the distorted message by having the Bubble Citizen pay for the message. Like books written by the Bubble Master, or subscriptions to a website like You see, once the Bubble Citizen pays for the distorted message, the Bubble Citizen is compelled to repeat and defend the distorted message. This is the mark of the True Bubble Citizen. This is what is called, "An All In Bubble Citizen (AAIBC)." Now not all Bubble Citizens are AAIBC. Only the the Bubble Citizens who are paying for the distorted messages coming from the Bubble Masters. The others like Mr. Chiarello are just feeling their way through the Bubble. Like browsing, taking a little, sort of like sampling to see if you like it.

    One suspects ReFreeman is a full AAIBC. Only suspected, not for sure. One test can tell, by asking the question,...Do you believe the Sandy Storm won the election for President Obama?

    Please respond and remove all doubt about your status of being a suspected Bubble Citizen. Thank you.

  31. ReFreeman says

    "Saul Alinsky Rules for radicals do you use most often."

    Oaa..K. Saul Alinsky.

    The fact you mention Saul Alinsky and reference Saul Alinsky, implying a sinister plot by Barack Obama, shows a self indoctrination by osmosis in the selected daily material you choose to read.

    Ok. Does anyone want to comment on this? Or care to bit on this Bubble message.

    Mr. ReFreeman, are you becoming a Bubble Master too? There seems to be a transformation in progress, from Bubble Citizen to Bubble Master?

    Again, let's reference Mr. Stephen J. Chiarello, article. Mr. ReFreeman, do you believe the Sandy Storm won the election for the President?

    This question will remove all doubt. Thank you.

  32. JeffFromVegas,

    They are in denial, so they create diverstions. It's a Bubble Citizen tactic created by the Bubble Masters.

    Seriously Jeff, we do need honest communication. By refusing to accept a reality, you know, something we all can see, hear and touch, is being in denial.

    However, please accept my attempt of using humor as a means to communicate.

  33. Mr. ReFreeman, says,

    "It's okay if you don't know much about the topics discussed in the letters." (Posted by ReFreeman)

    Saul Alinsky. It is assumed by your non-answer you agree with Mr. Chiarello, assessment.

    For the record you did not supply an answer to any of the items in Mr. Chiarello article. As usual you reference a third party to explain your position. You resurrected Paul Alinsky. Placing the bunden on Paul Alinsky to justify your position, and then running and hiding. This is called "throwing someone under the Bus." To bad Paul Alinsky is not here to defend the charges you are implying against the Democrats.

    Again, your not an honest broker of information. You supply information, only one sided, your side. Again, your reporting is incomplete. Again, you failed to fully support your position or stand by what you are saying. This is one of the many positions a Bubble Citizen will assume.

  34. Mr. ReFreeman,

    So you agree with Mr. Mr. Chiarello's assessment, saying the Sandy Storm won the election for President Obama.

    In case your off track, this is the debate.

    Remember, you responded to my response to Mr. Chiarello's article. Your response to my response was an offering to improve the message LTV sent to Mr. Chiarello.

    No where in your response to my response did you offer a response to Mr. Mr. Chiarello's talking points. Are you following?

    The Bubble message was for Mr. Chiarello. However, your were compelled to offer an improvement to the message. But it is now revealed you were intending to defend the Bubble message. Bubble messages are defended by "All In Bubble Citizens." I think you just exposed yourself. An "all in bubble citizen" is one who pays the Bubble Master for the messages inside the Bubble.

    To reference back to Mr. Chiarello's article, either you agree or disagree with Mr. Chiarello's assessment of the election.

  35. Just to be clear about the Bubble, here are the reference points.

    (1)The Bubble is place where a different reality exist.

    (2)In the Bubble, messages and information are stretch and distorted from gains of truth from all type of sources.

    (3)A Bubble Master controls the messages and information inside the Bubble. A Bubble Master is the likes of Foxnews, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Koch Brothers, the Bradley Foundation, or sites like the Drudge Report.

    (4)The mission of the Bubble Master is to distort the smallest point of truth and mislead the people inside the Bubble.

    (5)Once inside the Bubble you are officially a Bubble Citizen.

    (6)A Bubble Citizen who defends and repeats the distorted the message or information from the Bubble Master, takes rank as an All In Bubble Citizen, aka AIBC.

    (7)To qualify for the rank of AIBC one has to pay the Bubble Master for the distorted messages and information. Such as buying books or web subscriptions from the Bubble Master. This ensures the Bubble Citizen will commit to the distorted messages and information, and feel a sense of ownership to the Bubble Master. Like listening to Bill O'Reilly and Mike Huckabee, or Sean Hannity and buying whatever they are offering.

    (8)No information is allowed to come inside the Bubble without the Bubble Master approval. One must approach the Bubble Master with an offering. This usually results in one lower their standards or a compromise on your values. In other words, your must act and think like the Bubble Master in order to your message to be approved. Still, your message will distorted to conform to the Bubble Master standard. The key words are "distorted message."

    (9)And lastly, once one is in the Bubble and becomes a Bubble Citizen or up in rank as a AIBC, nothing can be heard by them from someone outside the Bubble. The Bubble Master controls the message.

    In other words, if your in debate with a Bubble Citizen, the Bubble Citizen will only hear their points in the discussion and the distorted message from the Bubble Master. An outsider does not have chance. It's like talking to stone wall. Some say, at least the stone wall is real. The Bubble Citizen operates from an alternate reality, as does the Bubble Master.

  36. "Carmine actually thought that the Benghazi thing would be a big deal in the election and it would hurt Obama.."

    Thanks to the lamestream media, Obama got a huge pass. BUT, El Lobo, did you see what happened on Friday? Hint: Petraeus. If you think Obama got a pass from Benghazi, you're not as smart as you think you are. Clinton on Benghazi: Missing in action. Rice on Benghazi: Missing in action. Petraeus on Banghazi: Missing in action. Well the president can't run and hide. The buck stops with him.

    And I'm not going anywhere. I'm here. And as Benghazi erupts in the news, I'm going to make you eat crow, 4 and 20 blackbirds all wrapped in humble pie.